[23333] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] support or focus groups for non-dominant subgroups
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Zonuts)
Thu Dec 26 17:40:48 2002
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 08:17:00 -0500
Reply-To: Zonuts <zonuts@ALUM.RPI.EDU>
From: Zonuts <zonuts@ALUM.RPI.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <200212240007197.SM01148@listserv.iupui.edu>
> > After all, members of non-dominant subgroups *have*
> > to be sensitive to the issues and cultural norms of
> > the dominant subgroup(s) to fit in, so why should
> > people from dominant subgroups have the "special
> > privilege" of not having to make that effort?
>
>Sorry, but I do tend to subscribe to the theories of
>social Darwinism.... social evolution is predicated on
>change, but it is the "dominant subgroup" that sets
>the parameters for that change. Should that "dominant
>subgroup" weaken, then a stronger subgroup will take
>it's place and rewrite the mandates for changes. It is
>the nature of any "dominant subgroup" to retain it's
>position as the "alpha".... the dominant group had to
>fight for what it achieved, and is not likely to let
>go without a fight.
This is where I think we have to agree to disagree. Plato wrote eloquently
about the tyranny of the majority when the Athenian democracy sentenced
Socrates to death. The founders of the U.S., in many of their writings,
noted their fears about that same tyranny of the majority, especially with
regard as to how the U.S. should be governed. Noted political philosopher
Alexis de Tocqueville also referred to that same tyranny of the majority,
and its dangers.
>And, frankly, in some pockets of this country, that
>change is taking place -- groups that were the
>"dominant subgroup" now find themselves being a
>"non-dominant subgroup." And in the corporate world,
>it is expected that the "dominant" culture of the
>"white male" will no longer be dominant in the next
>twenty years (at least this is what the HR department
>where I work has found in their research).
>And this is occurring simply by attrition... the
>"non-dominant" subgroups are growing faster than the
>"dominant" ones (the basis of the sentiment that the
>US needs to close its borders)
Actually, just by birth rates alone, even if we closed the borders today,
"white" will be a plurality and not a majority very soon throughout the
country. So, A Phi O and the rest of the U.S. is going to have to deal with
the changes that are happening demographically. We have no choice. We can
either deal with the changes proactively now with good planning and
foresight, laying down the groundwork for our future, or we can deal with
the changes painfully later as they are thrust upon us. I vote for now.
>Is that what this is all about?? The "so there, see
>how you like it" theory of diversity?
For people who are part of a dominant subgroup (and since you identified
yourself as a pagan, you are part of what is better described as an
invisible subgroup, which is a completely different dynamic), this is
something that many of them need to experience in order to understand what
it's like. It sounds like you do know how it feels, and don't need to have
it put in front of you the way that many people do need to see it.
>I don't buy
>that. I had to think about my corporate life... took
>me a minute to realize that there is a woman from
>Kenya working in my building. I work with her every
>day, so you'd have a hard time convincing me that she
>is part of a "non-dominant subgroup."
Have you two ever discussed what it is like for her to go to certain
restaurants, or stores? Most people of color do not share their stories
with people outside their group unless they feel safe in doing so.
>And all the
>other people that I've ever worked with -- I guess I
>just saw them as part of my culture.
We all have filters. Do you know if any of those people were GLBT? Had an
invisible disability? Had any other non-obvious differences that you did
not know about? Do you *really* know what anyone else other than yourself
experiences? I've learned that people rarely do know. This isn't a slam on
you, just an observation on how people in general process what goes on
around them.
>Maybe I'm part of the "non-dominant subgroup" that
>does not judge people on their external
>appearances....
People who proclaim themselves colorblind with regard to race make it
clear, in spoken or unspoken ways, that they do not want to know that there
are experiential differences, so race discussion is inherently suppressed.
>I could see focus groups being useful, as long as the
>group remains focused on the issue being discussed...
>a tough task for the faciliator/moderator in some
>discussions.
Yes. But worthwhile.
> > There are bigoted, uptight, militant, arrogant
> > idiots among any group, even ours. That does not
> > mean that we should paint all members of a group by
> > the brush of a dumb few.
>
>True. Tho, I did try to justify my generalization --
>all those that I have actually met have been that way.
>Not that I've met a statistically representative
>sample of those groups, but it's enough to make me
>wonder about the nature of the organization to which
>those people belong. I do try to give each person the
>individual opportunity to prove themselves
>otherwise...
Fair enough.
>It truly is a shame that we have those types of people
>in our organization tho. I thought ^&@ was all about
>the higher standard... Just goes to show that there is
>no standard for determining who gets to exemplify the
>higher standard.
True.
> > May I ask what you consider to be "entitlement
> > crap"? I'm not being facetious. You've hit a
> > sensitive issue that needs to be clarified.
>
>"Entitlement crap": the sentiment that, "I am entitled
>to more benefits than you because it was your
>ancestors that oppressed my ancestors." Current case
>and point involves a major lawsuit seeking reparations
>for slavery and other injustices that occurred between
>140 and 300 years ago. However, it's not just this
>case, but the prevailing sentiment in the culture that
>I am in the midst of that seems to believe that they
>are entitled to do whatever they want because of the
>color of their skin -- their rationale seemingly based
>on the concept of "turning tables." After all, their
>ancestors oppressors did it for so long, why shouldn't
>they do it now.
That's unfortunate. In my experiences in facilitated racial discussion, I
have not run into that attitude much, only here and there. Just as there is
no one "white" perspective on life, or one "male" perspective, there is no
one "African-American" or "black" perspective. There is a broad spectrum.
It sounds like you've been exposed more toward one area on the spectrum.
>So that's what I mean... the focus of life needs to be
>on the present and the future. Past abuse and
>injustice occurred; tho, yeah... i know... there is
>still a civil right issue even today, so it's not that
>much of just a "past" issue is it. But part of the
>problem with addressing the current issue is that the
>past ends up dragged into the discussion...
The past has to be aired out and understood before everyone can make their
peace with it. And this goes beyond race. In Europe, especially in
countries like Germany or Hungary or France where the government and the
majority of the non-Jewish non-Gypsy citizens actively cooperated with the
Nazis, there are still major issues around the Holocaust that affect how
Jews and Gypsies are treated, and there is an intense resurgence of
anti-Semitism of late. When people do not make peace with the past, they
bring the ghosts of the past into the present. The past cannot be buried
until it is understood.
> > Guess what? You've identified the emotions that most
> > people in non-dominant subgroups in American society
> > live with every day.
>
>Again, is that the point? Does that mean that the only
>way to make "white" people more sensitive is to
>oppress them so that they "identify the emotions."
>That seems to be the opinion of the "entitlement"
>culture...
Actually, it's more like the American Indian concept of not being able to
understand another man until you've walked in his moccasins. And it should
not be about oppression in any way, it should be about education, which may
be painful but should not be oppressive. If it is about oppression, then
it's being done badly.
>I don't know... getting beat up in 6th grade because I
>was tricked into saying a racist joke... Being
>ridiculed for the color of my hair... being critisized
>for my pagan beliefs... denied promotions because of
>my age and not my skills...
OK, then you *do* know something about how it feels - and you've made it
clear that it still hurts you. Is it such a stretch to believe that if
these things are painful to you, then racially-based discrimination is just
as painful to people of color who experience it?
>I am theoretically part of the "dominant subgroup" and
>have experienced quite a bit of discrimination.
Actually, by identifying yourself as pagan and as living in a
multi-cultural environment, you are not exactly part of the dominant
subgroup. You look the part, but do not live it. That's another area of
diversity that does need more discussion and understanding. I, too, am
someone who looks like part of the dominant subgroup, but I am so many
standard deviations off the mythical norm that it's funny. However, none of
the differences are obvious. You and I, and others like us, live in a very
different space than people who have obvious differences such as race or
visible disabilities, or than people who can identify quite clearly as
members of the dominant subgroup and who have no experiences of discrimination.
>Should
>we really begin to comparatively quantify what are
>"less" and "more" fractions of experience. Comparisons
>lead to competition... and I would argue that
>competition leads to the opinion that one group has
>experienced more and therefore deserves special
>treatment from the group that experienced less -- ie
>entitlement. And I've already said I don't like that
>idea...
I agree that entitlement is a dangerous approach. Understanding and
bridging the gaps is a much better approach.
>It is very rich... unfortunately, the majority of it
>has been lost -- the Romans did quite a number on it,
>whether under Caesar or under the guise of the Roman
>Catholic Church. Perhaps I should seek reparations
>from the Roman Catholic Church, as the last thread
>(however sparse a thread it may be) of the Roman
>Empire, for the systematic destruction of the Druids??
And should I receive compensation from the Hungarian government and Polish
government for the wholesale slaughter of my great-grandparents and
great-aunts and great-uncles in death marches and Nazi camps, and the
suffering that my grandparents experienced in hiding or fleeing, and in
their poverty and struggles after WWII? I'd rather not go there. We have to
understand the past, but we cannot repair it.
> > The idea is not to create separate A Phi O's for
> > each different subgroup. These sort of subgroup
> > assemblies help to *UNITE* a larger group, if done
> > right, and they are not intended to divide or
> > exclude.
>
>It's all about the practice. Theory and ideas are
>great, but who's to say if it gets "done right." There
>is a fundamental segregation -- right from wrong.
Yes. But "right" as I define it is a very constrained approach, where we
focus upon A Phi O's specific ideals, and what the different subgroups
within A Phi O experience as part of the larger group.
>Everybody is going to have a different idea of the
>"right" way to have such an assembly... and that's
>where we start to get into the concept of diplomacy --
>placating enough people to come to a table that they
>think is subjectively "right" for them.
And it's tricky, but it can be done.
>Tho, I thought that ^&@ already had a "diversity
>forum" program. Oh well... perhaps we need to make
>sure that we have such a forum program established?
We do have a program, but those associated with it to whom I have spoken
agree that we can and should do better.
>Our place is not to broker peace -- it is to exemplify
>peace. But unity seems to be easier achieved when
>there is a common enemy...
"Unity" is a term that has multiple and interesting connotations, and the
diversity of our brotherhood just from chapter to chapter would indicate
that unity might not be the best way to describe the whole of our
fraternity. I'm not sure what word would better suit, but unity implies a
level of sameness that is not and has never been true of us. And the idea
that we need to be unified against some mythical enemy bothers me.
Sharon
